A Review of Multi-UAV Task Allocation Algorithms for a Search and Rescue Scenario
, Mubashar Sarfraz 2, Rahim Ali Qamar 1, Muhammad Farhan Sohail 2 and Sheraz Alam Khan 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript provides an overview of tasking algorithms for multi-UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) systems in Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. The strengths, weaknesses and limitations of both static and dynamic algorithms are analysed and open issues and challenges for the future development of tasking algorithms are highlighted. The structure is well organised and the literature review is comprehensive.
The subject matter is highly relevant to SAR operations, given the increase in natural disasters and the need for effective and timely solutions.
The introduction is well written and provides good context, but could benefit from a clearer definition of the specific aims of the manuscript. Sources cited are relevant and up to date.
The figure captions could be improved to provide a more detailed explanation of the content and context of the figures, in particular Figure 1 is cited in the text as an example of the comparison, but it is not clear on what basis it shows this comparison. Figure 3 should be better explained either in the text or in the caption.
Some sections, such as the description of the algorithms, could benefit from more emphasis on technical details.
The authors also state the limitations of the algorithms, but it would be good to include suggestions on how these limitations could be addressed in future research.
I suggest only a few additions:
- Improve image captions to make them more explanatory.
- Add more technical details to the algorithm descriptions.
- Expand the discussion of limitations and future research directions.
Author Response
Please find the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents an improved approach to reviewing multi-UAV Task Allocation
Algorithms for search and rescue scenarios.
Please consider the following comments to enhance the quality of this paper.
1. Table 1: the abbreviation "SSI" should be written with the full name/words. Change from
"sequential single-item" to "Sequential single-item."
2. Section 3.1.1 (CBAA and CBBA Algorithm): the authors should provide an explanation of
ant colony algorithms.
Section 3.1.4 (Heuristic Approaches): the authors should include an explanation of the PSO
and MCPSO algorithms. Also, in line 273, the citation number [?] should be corrected.
3. Time and Space Complexity: The authors should describe the time and space complexity
of each task allocation algorithm for UAVs discussed in the paper. How do these
complexities affect the algorithm's scalability and real-world applicability?
4. Differences Between Static and Dynamic TA Algorithms: The authors should provide
more details on differences between static and dynamic task allocation algorithms in the
context of SAR operations.
5. Sections 4.4 and 4.5 : These sections are too brief and short. The authors should
provide more details on the challenges, benchmarking, and performance evaluations.
Section 4.4 (Multi-Objective Optimization and Real-World Implementation Challenges):
What practical challenges are faced when implementing your algorithm in real-world SAR
scenarios?
Section 4.5 (Benchmarking and Performance Evaluation): The discussion is too short.
What standardized benchmarks or performance metrics do you use to evaluate the
effectiveness of the task allocation algorithm in SAR scenarios? Provide comparisons of
your algorithm against existing methods using these benchmarks.
6. Conclusion Section: The conclusion can be improved by highlighting the limitations of the
research and suggesting future studies. The authors should discuss the assumptions and
limitations of their works and propose potential extensions.
7. References and Tables: When adding reference numbers in the manuscript and in
Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6, it would be clearer to order them sequentially (e.g., [1], [2], …, [122]).
Random numbering affects readability. Please rearrange the references accordingly and
review them for accuracy.
Author Response
please find the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for providing us with the revised version of the paper.
After a thorough review, we believe the revisions have successfully considered our comments and meet the required standards.
Therefore, we recommend accepting the paper for publication.
